Hi guys! It's know that the rules text in a magic card is an impediment that limit the complexity of a card, and even dont let a card to be printed unless it cutted. Over the years, Wizards made changes to reduce card's text (like create) , but thats doesnt be enough.
Today, I bring you some changes that Magic should make. Lets start
1. New Keyword: Fury
This would replace the ability "This creature must attack if able". Why?, because this ability was in Magic since its born, and is used very often in all sets. Keyworded the ability would safe space in texts.
2. New rule term: Revive
In the same way of die, this would replace phrases like "Put one creature card from your graveyard onto the battlefield" with "Revive your target creature card".
3. Name cards by its types, no by its names,
Instead of putting rhe complete name of a card in its rules text, it's better to put its permanent type only. For example, "Tin Street Assassin can block an additional..." to "This creature can block an additional...". This change should let to put long names on cards and should reduce rules text from older cards with long names. Legendary cards and planedwalkers should not be affected, for flavor reasons only.
4. Owner's
Eliminate the word "owner". Cards like Unsummon, for 3xample would only reads "Return target creature to the hand", instead of "its owner's hand". That the current rules text clarify that the permanent return to its owners hand sounds redundant and unnecesary.
5. Cast X spell
In Magic, the only thing you can cast is a spell, so write "artifact spells" or "instant spells" is unnecesary too. Saying "You can cast artifacts as though they have flash..." (without using the word "spell") is enough for me.
6. Attacks or blocks
They need to create a unique word that binds both the axtion of attack and block. Since "fight" is already use, I would use words like battle. "Target creature can't attack or block" to "Target creature can't battle", for example.
7. Activated and triggered abilities
The phrase "activated abilities can't be activated" sounds redundant. Its better to say only "Abiities can't be activated"
Thats all. If you have some ideas like this, maybe you can share them to me. Bye!
Moved to Magic General as this is not strictly Cube-related - Wildfire393
Hi guys! It's know that the rules text in a magic card is an impediment that limit the complexity of a card, and even dont let a card to be printed unless it cutted. Over the years, Wizards made changes to reduce card's text (like create) , but thats doesnt be enough.
Today, I bring you some changes that Magic should make. Lets start
No uh... thanks. But I'll give you a listen and see what you have to say.
1. New Keyword: Fury
This would replace the ability "This creature must attack if able". Why?, because this ability was in Magic since its born, and is used very often in all sets. Keyworded the ability would safe space in texts.
Potential keywords need to see a lot of use across a lot of cards in order to be... well, keywirded. I see less than a dozen? Maybe? Am I missing something here? Are there more?
2. New rule term: Revive
In the same way of die, this would replace phrases like "Put one creature card from your graveyard onto the battlefield" with "Revive your target creature card".
A little better but I don't really care for this one either. This sort of concept has so many conditions or exceptions that it ends up there are very few cards that really work well with keywording. The cards that really need it have such a long wall of text that keywording it isn't going to change much.
In essence, keywording won't help when there is so much additional text involving exceptions or special conditions.
3. Name cards by its types, no by its names,
Instead of putting rhe complete name of a card in its rules text, it's better to put its permanent type only. For example, "Tin Street Assassin can block an additional..." to "This creature can block an additional...". This change should let to put long names on cards and should reduce rules text from older cards with long names. Legendary cards and planedwalkers should not be affected, for flavor reasons only.
I'm actually quite content when they name the specific card instead of using the "creature" template. Believe it or not, I find it easier to parse for negative conditions when playing cards. But I digress, changing the existing template to allow for longer names is not a good enough reason for this change IMHO. YU-GI-OH has many of the longest names found in a game and it's absolutely absurd. Seriously, Magic needs to stay far far away from absurd garbage like Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Evening Twilight.
4. Owner's
Eliminate the word "owner". Cards like Unsummon, for 3xample would only reads "Return target creature to the hand", instead of "its owner's hand". That the current rules text clarify that the permanent return to its owners hand sounds redundant and unnecesary.
It's not redundant. There is actually a bit of history as to why this is. But in a nut shell, it boils down to who is casting Unsummon and whose hand said card returns to. Rules Lawyers love this sort of inane crap and I don't want to give them more ammo. So no.
5. Cast X spell
In Magic, the only thing you can cast is a spell, so write "artifact spells" or "instant spells" is unnecesary too. Saying "You can cast artifacts as though they have flash..." (without using the word "spell") is enough for me.
This on also has history though I'm not as intimately familiar with it. Very old cards actually did read this way, such as Metamorphosis. However, over time, I believe there was a number of clarifications as to what, exactly, a spell means. So many cards now have this templating for this reason. For instance, the previous mentioned Metamorphosis received errata to read "cast creature spell" instead of "summon creature". At this point, I think there has to be a very compelling reason to go back and, more importantly, to make it worth errata a bunch of cards again. Something I really have no interest in if the reason you gave is the only one.
6. Attacks or blocks
They need to create a unique word that binds both the axtion of attack and block. Since "fight" is already use, I would use words like battle. "Target creature can't attack or block" to "Target creature can't battle", for example.
There are 69 cards that have the phrase "attack or block" in its text. I do not believe that is enough cards to really justify such a keyword. Especially if said keyword is going to have reminder text anyways.
7. Activated and triggered abilities
The phrase "activated abilities can't be activated" sounds redundant. Its better to say only "Abiities can't be activated"
For 24 cards? Why??
Besides, "Activated Ability" has a very specific rules definition (602.1). Ability is a bit more general encompassing four different types of abilities. I suspect removing "activated" would add a layer of potential ambiguity that's just not worth dealing with.
#4 No. When magic was starting out, questions like "does this go to my hand/graveyard or the other guys?" were quite common. Also, there are spells were owner and controller are different (brand).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
A really good keyword actually explains itself , even in flavor.
FLYING is the absolute best keyword ever, as it explains itself how it works and its super trivial to understand.
Deathtouch and Lifelink are reasonable too, but then have rules baggage in special cases too, which makes them worse.
Trample is a particular bad keyword as it doesnt explain itself, but its used so often that it simply comes up all the time.
Menace is a bad keyboard, but they use it so often now that it also becomes more simple as its not particularly complicated either.
Your "fury" idea would fall in the same group like Menace, its just a shorter word, but the word itself wouldnt explain what it means at all, you need to know that its a shorter keyword for that ability.
Having a keyword for many more abilities at some point produces a "language" in itself.
Shorter words that have a meaning and you need to learn the meaning of these words to speak that language, and once you do, you understand stuff easier with less words ; but that has a cost, which you want to keep limited.
If you can use some reasonable short text to explain an ability, you can write it out ; thats just like a keyword with a explain text attached, produces pretty much the same result for commons for which they do that (on rares and mythics they mostly ommit the explain part of the abilities as they get crowded with abilities and more ability text).
----
So most of your ideas are to introduce more keywords.
For the vast majority of times you can totally do that, but you end up with cards that are filled with keywords and if you want to produce a "magic language" thats exactly whats going to be that way.
Other words are used to clarify what happens, especially to newbie players.
If a card is bounced, a newbie expects to put them in their hand.
If they gain control of a creature they dont own, they still expect it will end up in their hand, their graveyard or their library, which isnt the case as the rule simply says you cant ever have cards you dont own in your hand, graveyard or library, or exile, or anywhere really expect the battlefield ; this rule is broken in Un-Sets that specifically allow exactly that, but that is a big problem in any other case ; as a player is always allowed to simply pack up their cards and leave at any point of time ; which cant work if you place cards they dont own in any of their cards. And players are allowed to play without sleeves, putting cards together in such cases, especially in the library is a tremendous problem ; that cant ever be allowed.
#3 has some merit but can be surprisingly hard to template for cards that often change card types, like vehicles. "This card" might be a solution for the most part but also runs into trouble with token.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
1: Keywording still requires reminder text. So you are signing up a lot of cards to have more text than they do now (remember, they still put reminder text for Menace on almost all of the commons that use the ability).
2: Your wording is clunky. Revive should state, "Revive (Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield)." If you have to say, "Revive your target creature card" then you are not really saving any room.
3: They already partially fixed this issue by just stating "this spell" in place of the card name. Part of the reason they keep stating the name of the card is because it makes the effect clearly and more precisely.
4: Owner is 100% necessary because without it, it would cause confusion. What if I control your creature and unsummon it. Do I get the card or do you? Your fix eliminates 8 characters but makes the effect more vague and forces people to look the wording up in the rulebook.
5. There is a difference between a card and a spell. A spell is on the stack, a card is not.
6. Battle means people have to look up what that means, or WotC has to print the reminder text on a lot of cards. Not worth the effort.
7. There is more than one kind of ability. There are Activated Abilities, Triggered Abilities, Static Abilities, Mana Abilities, Loyalty Abilities and Linked Abilities. Your rules fix adds a large layer of confusion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Today, I bring you some changes that Magic should make. Lets start
1. New Keyword: Fury
This would replace the ability "This creature must attack if able". Why?, because this ability was in Magic since its born, and is used very often in all sets. Keyworded the ability would safe space in texts.
2. New rule term: Revive
In the same way of die, this would replace phrases like "Put one creature card from your graveyard onto the battlefield" with "Revive your target creature card".
3. Name cards by its types, no by its names,
Instead of putting rhe complete name of a card in its rules text, it's better to put its permanent type only. For example, "Tin Street Assassin can block an additional..." to "This creature can block an additional...". This change should let to put long names on cards and should reduce rules text from older cards with long names. Legendary cards and planedwalkers should not be affected, for flavor reasons only.
4. Owner's
Eliminate the word "owner". Cards like Unsummon, for 3xample would only reads "Return target creature to the hand", instead of "its owner's hand". That the current rules text clarify that the permanent return to its owners hand sounds redundant and unnecesary.
5. Cast X spell
In Magic, the only thing you can cast is a spell, so write "artifact spells" or "instant spells" is unnecesary too. Saying "You can cast artifacts as though they have flash..." (without using the word "spell") is enough for me.
6. Attacks or blocks
They need to create a unique word that binds both the axtion of attack and block. Since "fight" is already use, I would use words like battle. "Target creature can't attack or block" to "Target creature can't battle", for example.
7. Activated and triggered abilities
The phrase "activated abilities can't be activated" sounds redundant. Its better to say only "Abiities can't be activated"
Thats all. If you have some ideas like this, maybe you can share them to me. Bye!
Moved to Magic General as this is not strictly Cube-related - Wildfire393
The hardest thing about Cube is already inconsistent templating and overabundance of keywords.
No uh... thanks. But I'll give you a listen and see what you have to say.
Potential keywords need to see a lot of use across a lot of cards in order to be... well, keywirded. I see less than a dozen? Maybe? Am I missing something here? Are there more?
A little better but I don't really care for this one either. This sort of concept has so many conditions or exceptions that it ends up there are very few cards that really work well with keywording. The cards that really need it have such a long wall of text that keywording it isn't going to change much.
In essence, keywording won't help when there is so much additional text involving exceptions or special conditions.
I'm actually quite content when they name the specific card instead of using the "creature" template. Believe it or not, I find it easier to parse for negative conditions when playing cards. But I digress, changing the existing template to allow for longer names is not a good enough reason for this change IMHO. YU-GI-OH has many of the longest names found in a game and it's absolutely absurd. Seriously, Magic needs to stay far far away from absurd garbage like Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Evening Twilight.
It's not redundant. There is actually a bit of history as to why this is. But in a nut shell, it boils down to who is casting Unsummon and whose hand said card returns to. Rules Lawyers love this sort of inane crap and I don't want to give them more ammo. So no.
This on also has history though I'm not as intimately familiar with it. Very old cards actually did read this way, such as Metamorphosis. However, over time, I believe there was a number of clarifications as to what, exactly, a spell means. So many cards now have this templating for this reason. For instance, the previous mentioned Metamorphosis received errata to read "cast creature spell" instead of "summon creature". At this point, I think there has to be a very compelling reason to go back and, more importantly, to make it worth errata a bunch of cards again. Something I really have no interest in if the reason you gave is the only one.
There are 69 cards that have the phrase "attack or block" in its text. I do not believe that is enough cards to really justify such a keyword. Especially if said keyword is going to have reminder text anyways.
For 24 cards? Why??
Besides, "Activated Ability" has a very specific rules definition (602.1). Ability is a bit more general encompassing four different types of abilities. I suspect removing "activated" would add a layer of potential ambiguity that's just not worth dealing with.
This adds a layer of complexity.
Imagine you're a new player.
"This creature must attack if able? Ok."
vs
"What does fury mean again?"
#4 No. When magic was starting out, questions like "does this go to my hand/graveyard or the other guys?" were quite common. Also, there are spells were owner and controller are different (brand).
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
A really good keyword actually explains itself , even in flavor.
FLYING is the absolute best keyword ever, as it explains itself how it works and its super trivial to understand.
Deathtouch and Lifelink are reasonable too, but then have rules baggage in special cases too, which makes them worse.
Trample is a particular bad keyword as it doesnt explain itself, but its used so often that it simply comes up all the time.
Menace is a bad keyboard, but they use it so often now that it also becomes more simple as its not particularly complicated either.
Your "fury" idea would fall in the same group like Menace, its just a shorter word, but the word itself wouldnt explain what it means at all, you need to know that its a shorter keyword for that ability.
Having a keyword for many more abilities at some point produces a "language" in itself.
Shorter words that have a meaning and you need to learn the meaning of these words to speak that language, and once you do, you understand stuff easier with less words ; but that has a cost, which you want to keep limited.
If you can use some reasonable short text to explain an ability, you can write it out ; thats just like a keyword with a explain text attached, produces pretty much the same result for commons for which they do that (on rares and mythics they mostly ommit the explain part of the abilities as they get crowded with abilities and more ability text).
----
So most of your ideas are to introduce more keywords.
For the vast majority of times you can totally do that, but you end up with cards that are filled with keywords and if you want to produce a "magic language" thats exactly whats going to be that way.
Other words are used to clarify what happens, especially to newbie players.
If a card is bounced, a newbie expects to put them in their hand.
If they gain control of a creature they dont own, they still expect it will end up in their hand, their graveyard or their library, which isnt the case as the rule simply says you cant ever have cards you dont own in your hand, graveyard or library, or exile, or anywhere really expect the battlefield ; this rule is broken in Un-Sets that specifically allow exactly that, but that is a big problem in any other case ; as a player is always allowed to simply pack up their cards and leave at any point of time ; which cant work if you place cards they dont own in any of their cards. And players are allowed to play without sleeves, putting cards together in such cases, especially in the library is a tremendous problem ; that cant ever be allowed.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
#3 has some merit but can be surprisingly hard to template for cards that often change card types, like vehicles. "This card" might be a solution for the most part but also runs into trouble with token.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
2: Your wording is clunky. Revive should state, "Revive (Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield)." If you have to say, "Revive your target creature card" then you are not really saving any room.
3: They already partially fixed this issue by just stating "this spell" in place of the card name. Part of the reason they keep stating the name of the card is because it makes the effect clearly and more precisely.
4: Owner is 100% necessary because without it, it would cause confusion. What if I control your creature and unsummon it. Do I get the card or do you? Your fix eliminates 8 characters but makes the effect more vague and forces people to look the wording up in the rulebook.
5. There is a difference between a card and a spell. A spell is on the stack, a card is not.
6. Battle means people have to look up what that means, or WotC has to print the reminder text on a lot of cards. Not worth the effort.
7. There is more than one kind of ability. There are Activated Abilities, Triggered Abilities, Static Abilities, Mana Abilities, Loyalty Abilities and Linked Abilities. Your rules fix adds a large layer of confusion.